Stacey Barker Murder Trial - Day Two

RIP Emma Leigh Barker 9/2007 - 3/2009

Day two (Thursday, April 28 ) of the Stacey Barker murder trial was a frustrating day pretty much all around. Sue Barker, the defendant's mother,  was back on the stand for more direct questioning by Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Kelly Cromer. The day was frustrating for DDA Kelly Cromer  because Sue Barker seemed to have developed a serious case of the "I don't recall" syndrome....the state had requested  the court to declare her a hostile witness yesterday.....and the court agreed. (Sorry missed reporting this yesterday)

The day was also frustrating  for our friends, here is what Tori had to say about Sue's testimony, " I felt so sorry for her I could feel her pain and she looked like she was in a daze...this has taken a toll on her, Ange commented that she felt like she just wanted to hug her and tell her it was NOT her fault, that she felt heartsick for this woman she did not know...a husband that would leave her in her greatest pain for thoughts and words she said about her daughter. A daughter that had killed her only grandchild, she is in great fear of losing her husband now...how sad she loses her granddaughter, her daughter and if Stacey is convicted because of her testimony she may also lose her husband, because Stacey Barker is a "Daddy's girl" and always has been.

Just hearing Tori's description makes Sue's pain palpable for me. Does it you? No doubt, this was one of the more frustrating days of Sue's life. She learned she was recorded in an interview with the homicide detectives when she said of her daughter, " I know she did it, and I want you to prove it". Her gut instinct was justice for her granddaughter, not of making up lies to protect her daughter. If you haven't seen them already, Tori very kindly made several comments here giving her impressions of the day.

There was something worrisome that happened in court after the jury was dismissed yesterday. Our friends learned today that Judge Zackey advised both parties that he wants Sue Barker examined and her testimony is to be recorded in case something were to happen to her. The court didn't expand on that, but I think we can read between the lines :(  

There's a lot to say so I'll get to reporting the court business and testimony. Before the jury was brought in for the day's testimony,  DDA Cromer had some things to say about the first day of trial and Stacey Barker's Public Defender, Roberto Dager. Kelly made it clear to the court that she was mad at things PD Dager had said in his opening statement. Cromer felt that that Dager's concentration in his opening on condemning the state and detectives including making personal attacks against them for recording X's conversations with Barker was misconduct. Judge Zackey agreed with the state. Zackey said if it was misconduct, it will not be tolerated, adding he will read the transcripts of the defense opening and would rule later. (I wonder if he will wait until after trial to make a ruling?)   

There is a few other issues for the court to discuss before testimony could start, Judge Zackey advised both parties that someone had called the LA County Sheriff's Office to report that Sue Barker was heard talking about her testimony in the hallway in front of some jurors. Judge Zackey had the jury brought in and questioned them whether they had overheard anyone talking about the case in the hallway during break. No one on the jury had heard anyone talking about the case, so the judge reminded them of the admonishment not to talk to anyone about the case or allow anyone to talk to them about it. If this did happen he advised them to talk to Johnnie, the court's bailiff who would let him know.

( An interesting side note is Tori had mentioned she saw and heard Brendon Borrelli's mother talking to Gary Barker and Brendon in the hallway about Sue's testimony during a break . Seems important enough to mention now....did someone else witness the same and get confused who was who and reported it, or was the incident reported with Sue a different incident?)  

Here is the abbreviation key I will use for the defendant and those speaking in court today....

"JZ" for Judge Hayden Zackey

"KC" for Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer

"RD" for Deputy Public Defender Roberto Dager

"SB" for Stacey Barker

"Sue" for Sue Barker

"Hoyt" for Detective John Hoyt

Testimony started at 11:20 today with more direct examination of Sue Barker by DDA Kelly Cromer. I'll use the same Q&A format as yesterday.

Direct Examination- Sue Barker
KC - Who are the people out in the hall ? Sue - My husband and my sister. KC - The husband you told Detective Nava that you didn't want to lose? (No response noted.)

KC - Who came into the courtroom yesterday after the second break?  Sue - I don't know. KC - No one came in ?  Sue - I was. KC - Did your son Matt come in ? Sue - Yes. KC - That was the same time that you seemed to have some lapse in memory. Is it hard for you to testify? Sue - Yes. KC - Why? Sue -  It just is. KC - Do you feel guilt because of the argument you had with Stacey?  Sue - Yes

KC -  Did you tell Detective Nava that you and Stacey had argued in recent weeks before Emma's death and you said something about kicking her out? Sue - I don't know. KC - Did you know that interview was recorded? Sue - I didn't see a recorder.

KC - Did you tell Detective Nava that Brendon Borrelli might be a suspect? Sue - Yes  KC -  Did Det. Nava say that if Brendon had told her to do it it was still her decision? Sue - I know it was Stacey's doing.

KC - Anyone in the family in the legal profession? Sue - Not that I know of. KC - Any relation, not just immediate family? Sue - Gary's sister is a para-legal but I haven't talked to her about this.

KC - You don't recall searching the house for Emma's binky (pink blanket) ? Yesterday you said didn't remember looking for it but today you remember asking Stacey, who said it was in the car. Sue - Yes, but...

KC - Did you ask Stacey why she didn't leave the blanket with Emma's body? Sue - Yes, but she didn't answer.

KC - Did Stacey keep granola bars in her purse for Emma?    Sue - Yes, that was standard.

KC - Whose idea was it for you to have a conversation with Detective Nava at the station?
Sue - Don't know.

KC - Yesterday you said that you remember Emma playing with Stacey's purse. Did you tell detective Nava that it was unusual for Emma to play with her purse? (no response noted)

KC - (Gets out the letters alleged to be written by Stacey to Witness X and pulls out 4 of them) Sue, is this Stacey's writing? Sue - Yes  KC -  (shows Sue exhibit 1e, an envelope from the pack with butterflies drawn on it.) Wasn't that on Emma's Binky? Sue - Yes, there were butterflies on Emma's Binky.
KC -  No more questions.

Cross Examination - Sue Barker

RD - Mr. Dager greets Sue Barker....How are you?  Sue - Fine. RD - You never wanted to talk to me before? Sue - No RD -Do you want to now? Sue - Yes.

RD - Stacey attended Quartz Hill High school, and handed Sue some papers to look at. Sue - These two pages I have never seen. The third page I have seen. RD - When did you see this? Sue - Sometime near graduation. RD - What does it say? Sue - Academics RD - What does it say? Sue - 3.5 RD - Say the whole number. Sue - 3.055 (Tori noted that Dager seemed pretty pleased with himself  after Sue read all the digits. DOH! That makes her GPA 3.1 not 3.5 !)

RD - Did Stacey have any history of street fights? KC - Objection, speculation. JZ - Rephrase. RD - have you seen her come home with any bumps, cuts, or bruises? Sue - No. RD - How many physical fights have you seen her have with her brothers? Sue - Once in her whole life.

RD - When did Stacey move back home? Sue - When she found out she was pregnant at age 23. She moved out when she was 18. At 18 she had her own apartment. RD - How many jobs did she have to work to afford her own apartment? Sue - Two. RD - Kind of hard to work two jobs when pregnant?
Sue - Yes, because she couldn't keep the pizza job. RD - Did she go to college? Sue - No. RD - Why? Sue - Because she worked two jobs , she didn't have time.

RD - Has she always been emotionless? She never cried before Emma died? Sue - No, she has only cried 10 times in her whole life. she was never an emotional person.

RD - So, are you an alcoholic? Sue - Yes. RD - Did you drink daily before Emma died? Sue - No, just a couple days a week. RD - Did you drink Jose Quervo tequila? Sue - Yes, shots of Jose Quervo. RD - Were you taking depression medication at the same time? Sue - Yes. RD - Pills and alcohol? Sue - Yes.
RD - Did you know that could kill you ? Sue - No. RD - You've been sober 13 days? Sue - Yes.

RD - When did Stacey move back home? Sue - Immediately when she found out she was pregnant.
RD - How long was that? Sue - She was a month or two.

RD - What if anything did Stacey tell you about Anthony? (Emma's Dad) Sue - Nothing. RD - How many times did you see Anthony at the house? Sue - Once at her house. RD - Did you ask he3r why she didn't live with him? Sue - No. RD - What did you say to Stacey about Anthony? Sue - That he didn't seem to be concerned about being a dad.

RD - How many bedrooms are there in your home? Sue - Four, one room was an office that we turned into a bedroom for Emma when she was about 3 months. RD - So where did Emma sleep the first 3 months?
Sue - In Stacey's room. RD - Who suggested changing the office into a room for Emma?  Sue - I did.

Court broke for lunch here and returned at 1:30 pm.

RD - What was the daycare when Stacey went back to work? Sue - Emma went to daycare for one day.
RD - Why only one day? Sue - Because I went to daycare to pick up Emma and it wasn't good, she wasn't being cared for as she should have been. RD - What was Stacey's demeanor when you told her about the conditions at daycare? Sue - She cried. RD -  Why did she cry? Because her daughter wasn't being cared for?  Sue - Yes, I suggested going back on nights so that Emma could be cared for in the day without daycare. Nick cared for Emma during the day until I could get back on nights. That took about a month, I cared for Emma from 4 to 18 months. Stacey started out working an eight hour shift, the eight am  to five pm. Stacey asked to go in earlier and earlier so I could sleep.

RD - You went to see Stacey at Linwood (Detention center) once and called her only once. Why? Sue - I wasn't happy with Stacey. RD - Do you want to see her now? Sue - Yes.  RD - Did anyone tell you what to say? Sue - No. (◔_◔)

(Tori made a note before this question was even asked, that it did appear that Sue had been coached compared to her testimony yesterday.)
 
RD -  These are defense exhibits, pictures A-G. Who is in the pictures and what is she wearing?
Sue - Emma. RD - Who bought the dress she is wearing? Sue - I did. RD - Dager showed Sue photos B-G and each picture asked, "Who bought this dress she is wearing?" Sue - Each time asked, Sue responded, "I did".

(Tori notes that yesterday Sue testified she bought all the toys for Emma and Stacey bought her clothes....guess one or the other response is false. She also noted some jurors looked back in their notes after this round of Q&A. )
 
RD - This receipt is defense exhibit (#?), it's a Target receipt dated March 17, 2009. Junior - ears are purchased, is that familiar? Sue - Yes. Stacey bought it. RD - What is it? Sue - 2 pairs shorts, 2 shirts, sandals and tennis shoes. RD - Where did the receipt come from? Sue - I gave it to the defense investigator. I found it on top of Emma's dresser.
 
RD - This next item is is defense exhibit H, a Baby Blender Cookbook. Why did Stacey have this book?
Sue - because she didn't want Emma to have processed food. Stacey herself ate healthy after she became pregnant. RD - Did she use these recipes? Sue - Yes, she made them and froze them for Emma. RD - Do you recognize this book?  Sue - Yes, it was in Emma's room too and I gave it to the investigator. RD - You did? Sue - Well...Gary did. (Sue's husband, Stacey's dad) RD - So she blended meat and vegetables and fruit? Sue - Yes, to freeze for future use.
 
RD - Did Stacey tell you she was going out for St. Patricks ? Sue - no, she didn't say.
 
RD - When was the last you saw Stacey and Emma? Sue - On March 18, when Stacey came home from work. RD - At 3:15, did you argue? Sue - Yes. RD - How long did it last? Sue - 5 minutes. RD - Was there screaming?  RD - Stacey was screaming she couldn't make anyone happy. I told her she needed to come home on time so I could rest.
 
RD - When did you find out what happened? Sue - On March 18 at 11 pm, I got a call at work from Gary to tell me what happened. Gary picked me up from work and we went to the Park n Ride on Avenue S.
RD - Who was there? Sue - Stacey, Nick and Brendon. We stayed a few minutes. RD - Why only a few minutes? Sue - Stacey was being loaded into the ambulance so we went to the ER. RD - Did you leave the hospital and go to the Palmdale Sheriff station? Sue - Yeah, that was morning March 19.
 
RD - Any law enforcement contact you? Sue - No, we spent several hours at the Sheriff's station and then went home. At some point Detectives Nava and McCarthy and told us they had found Emma. We had a half hour conversation with them. RD - Did they ask for any suggestions of potential suspects? Sue - Yes. Do you think Brendon Borrelli  could be a suspect? Nava asked that, and do we think Brendon and Stacey could have conspired to get rid of Emma?
 
Sue - On March 20, LE took us ( Gary and Sue) to the Sheriff's station because they needed to question us. I sat in the lobby until Detective Nava joined me and said she wanted to speak to me alone. We only had 3 conversations in all.  RD - Were you recorded? Sue - I didn't know we were recorded.

Sue - On March 20, LE took us ( Gary and Sue) to the Sheriff's station because they needed to question us. I sat in the lobby until Detective Nava joined me and said she wanted to speak to me alone. We only had 3 conversations in all. RD - Were you recorded? Sue - I didn't know we were being recorded. RD - During that conversation did Detective Nava tell you something? Sue - Yes, she said pink fibers were found in Emma's throat. RD - How did that make you feel? Sue - I was devastated. RD - Did you know that Det. Nava was lying and no fibers were found? Sue - No. RD - Is that why you were mad at Stacey? Sue - Yes, after a half hour conversation Stacey went to live at Larry Barker's home. ( Gary's Dad ) RD - That was an interrogation technique. Detective Nava didn't have fibers. Sue - No, I didn't know. RD - How did Nava know the blanket was pink? Sue - I don't know. RD - You didn't know she was lying at that time?Sue - No.


RD - What do you know about a drinking game? Was there drinking going on during the mourning period?

Sue - Yes. RD - Was there a party? Sue - Not a party the night before but people were coming in and out.

RD - When you had dinner were all of Nick's friends there? Sue - Yes, that's when we played beer pong.

JZ - Can you explain what beer pong is? Sue - Beer cups are set up on a ping pong table like bowling pins, each person bounces a ping pong ball trying to get it in a cup, those who make it drink the beer. RD - Did Stacey play? Sue - Stacey only played 45 minutes, at my request. I was trying to cheer her up. She was quiet the whole time.

RD - How did you feel when you found out Detective Nava lied to you? Sue - Mad. JZ - Strike that, that's for the jury to decide what is the truth. RD - How they dealt with grief. (WTH, this is what we meant about questions jumping around.)

Cross Done - Re-direct Starts

KC - Why did you only visit Stacey once at Linwood? Sue - I was hurt. KC - Why, Did you think Stacey killed Emma? Sue - I did, yes. KC - So, when after 3/19 did you have a lot to drink? Had you drank alot when you were interviewed by Detective Nava? Sue - No, after. KC - Did you tell Detective Nava you knew Stacey was guilty and say I want you to prove it? Sue - Yes.

KC - You said you didn't go to the doctor with Stacey when she was pregnant? Sue - Yes, I didn't go with her. KC - But Anthony did go to the Stacey's doctor appointments when she was pregnant? Sue - Yes

KC - I thought he had no interest in being a dad? Sue - I don't know.

KC - When did Stacey start dating again after Emma's birth? Sue - 3 months, she had 2 or 3 boyfriends before she met Brendon.

KC - Did Stacey have any significant injuries when growing up? Sue - One. She hurt her shoulder in gymnastic, but she didn't cry.

KC - So you drank daily before Emma died? Sue - uuhh....yeah. KC - What? Sue - Shots of Jose Quervo, 4 to 5 shots in the evening a couple days a week. KC - How much do you weigh? Sue - 195 lbs.

KC - Do you know Colleen B.? (Colleen is Anthony's mom.) Sue - I met her after Emma's birth.

KC - How long ? Sue - 4 or 5 months. KC - Her daughter? Sue - One time, only.

KC - Defense exhibit H, the baby food book, Is this is the book that Stacey used? Are you sure ?
Sue - Yes. KC - This book doesn't look as though it's been opened much, pages stick together. Sue - I don't know, but she did use it. KC - Hmmm...nothing spilled on it, no pages pressed down, doesn't seem to want to open to any one area...like it's been used. Sue - I don't know. KC - Huh (Not said as a question but rather an opinion aka mild equivalent of BS.)

The pictures here are not what are part of the defense exhibit but may be close in age to the ones the jury are seeing.

                                                                           

KC - The photos, defense exhibit A-G, what ages are they? Sue - (went through pictures) This is 3 months, this is Stacey with Emma at 3 months, this is 3 months, this is Emma newborn. KC - She looks awfully good for newborn? Sue - C- section, picture C is between 3 and 6 months. D is Thanksgiving, uhh...about 2 1/2 months. JZ - Who cooked it? Sue - I did. Emma had a bib that said 1st Thanksgiving. 

Judge Zackey is such a nice guy, but this is Kelly's direct and she has a job to do, sooo.....

KC - You said when you and Stacy were fighting on March 18, she was screaming "I CAN'T MAKE ANYONE HAPPY!" What did she say? Sue - I can't make anyone happy, work, you.... Emma's never happy and I can't make my boyfriend happy!

KC - You made several statements to detectives, each statement to Detective Nava was after she had died, had Emma had an Autopsy yet? Sue - No. KC - What were you told? Sue -Not for 3 weeks. KC - So the day you spoke to Nava, you knew Emma didn't have an autopsy. Sue -No. KC - The 1st day you talked with Nava, the autopsy wasn't done, and you made the statement that Stacey killed Emma, you knew no autopsy, no fibers. When you said Brendon might have helped was before the pink fibers were mentioned or you should have known Nava was lying.

(Tori notes here that Kelly Cromer is on fire today!)

KC - Did Stacey ever shed a tear for Emma? Sue - No. KC - Remorse or regrets? Sue - No.

KC - Why was Stacey going to Long Beach? You told Nava she had plenty of money. Did you say you thought she killed Emma in Palmdale and was going to Long beach to pin it on Anthony? Sue - Yes. KC - How many times had Stacey taken Emma to Long Beach? Sue - None. KC - Stacey herself to Long beach? Sue - When she was pregnant she spent a weekend with Anthony in Long beach.

KC - What was the one major injury that Stacey had growing up? Sue - she dislocated her shoulder during gymnastics. KC - She didn't cry? Sue - No, but had to heal, it took a couple weeks to heal.

KC - Defense exhibit I, is the Target receipt. You said this was new clothes, how do you know they are new? Sue - I saw them, tags still on them. KC - What are ears? Sue - I don't know. KC -I thought you saw the stuff, what was it? Sue - 2 shorts, 2 shirts, sandals and tennies. KC - The receipt time is 5:10 pm from Target in Lancaster.

(Tori noted that takes at least 15 minutes to go from that Target to Barkers and Sue had to leave at 5:30.....either the times don't add up or someone else was watching Emma.)

Re cross examination

RD - She had this blender book. Tori notes as Dager holds the book he is flipping through the pages and bending the binding. Sue - yes, she used it. RD - I JUST DONT LIKE MISS CROMER SAYING THERE WAS NO FLOUR....RD is standing right behind Kelly Cromer as he screamed this. KC - Objection! Personal Attack...and screaming in my ears! JZ - Mr. Dager.... RD - Just because there isn't any flour or food on this doesn't mean it wasn't used! As Dager said this he was manipulating the book and threw it down on his table and picked up a few times to the extent our friends thought he might be trying to age that book a little...just saying. Re-cross done. Brendon Borrelli is told to stand by before re-direct.

JZ - Want to ask more? (asks KC) KC - no, but I'm thinking. JZ - You can have her recalled. KC - My next witness won't be short so I want to change the witness order. JZ - OK.

Detective John Hoyt is called to the stand. Hoyt says he is employed with the LA County Sheriff Department assault and crime unit. He is dressed in a uniform.

Direct examination - Detective John Hoyt

KC - Did you go to the crime scene? What did you see? Hoyt - A silver Mazda parked with all 4 doors open. Both front seats were in a reclining position....reclined all the way back. KC - Did anyone move them? Hoyt - Protocol doesn't allow moving anything. KC - What is this? Hoyt - An adults brown sandal and a child's tennis shoe with a red and white bottom.

KC - Did you stay with the car? Hoyt - No, I went to the hospital to talk to SB.I asked her what happened and she didn't know but thought she was knocked out at the city park. (Lancaster) KC - What did she say to you? Hoyt - Her eye hurt, the back of her head and her ribs hurt. KC - Did she ask about the baby? Hoyt - No KC - What did you notice about her? Hoyt - Clean feet, hands and fingernails. KC - In this informal interview not once asked about Emma. (More of a statement than a question.) Direct exam finished.

Cross examination - Detective John Hoyt

RD - If you are a detective, why are you wearing a Sheriff's deputy uniform? Hoyt - With budget cuts we dress for the street. RD - Did you stay with the car? Hoyt - No. RD - Did you touch the car? Hoyt - No

RD - When did you get called? Hoyt - About 11:40 pm. RD - What were you doing when called? Hoyt - Trying to sleep. RD - Got there about Midnight? Who was there? Hoyt - The Crime Scene Unit was there. RD - How do you know no one else touched the car? Hoyt - That's not protocol, so I doubt it.

Cross Examination was finished and the day is over. JZ - instructed the jury to be in the jury room by 10:30 am tomorrow and he will try to have them up here by 10:45. ( Day 3, tomorrow is, Friday, April 29)

There is a detail that I hadn't mentioned yet. On the first day of trial Tori had noted an attractive young woman with short (pixie cut) with blond over black hair, that she didn't know, speaking with one of Stacey Barker's grandfathers. After speaking with him for a few moments she moved away to her own seat and took notes. We discussed her that night and concluded she may be a cousin or friend.


Today the same young woman was in court but this time she had a woman with her. After a few moments Tori realized the woman with her was Anthony's mother. Later on a break Tori and the young woman spoke and we learn the young woman is Susan, Anthony's sister and the other woman is indeed Anthony's mother, Colleen B.


Susan asked Tori...are you guys the bloggers? Tori, replied , yes...I suppose you hate us too. (It seems as though Stacey Barker's family blame every vile thing that has been said about Stacey out on the web on us.) Susan said, no...we love you guys, extended family and friends are able to follow the case through our blogging. Susan and Colleen did ask us not to use their last names and we agreed. Tori assured them we have been following this case for Emma and are here for Emma .


The reason I bring up Colleen and Susan at all is because "reportedly" Gary Barker pointed Colleen out to Dager who said he has been trying to contact her. Dager wants Colleen added to the witness list and tells Judge Zackey that. Kelly Cromer said she would like to talk to her as well. Evidently, Kelly added Colleen to the state's witness list because she will be the first witness on the stand tomorrow for day 3.

Sphere: Related Content

Motion Of The Day...Once Again Nicholas Sheley Wants To Go Pro Se- Updated

Updated 4/17/2011 at bottom of post

 original post April 4

Newest mugshots at Pontiac Correctional Center

When I left home on March 29, 2011 for the Knox County courthouse to attend a case management hearing in the capital murder case of  Nicholas Sheley, accused of killing Ronald Randall,65, in Galesburg, IL., I told Mr. Katfish not to expect me back for several hours as this might turn out to be a long hearing.

This will be the first trial that Sheley faces related to the June 2008 killing spree of eight people that he is accused of. He also faces first degree murder charges in Whiteside County, IL for the deaths of 5 people and Festus, MO for the death of 2 other people. You can read about the killing spree here if you aren't familiar with the case.

I'm not sure what to expect today because this is the first hearing since IL Governor Patrick Quinn signed off on legislation to abolish the death penalty in IL on March 9. That legislation doesn't take effect until July 1, 2011, so unless the state decides to take the DP off the table before then, this will continue as a capital murder case until the legislation takes effect. At the last hearing, on February 4, there was discussion of discovery and evidentiary issues that may be argued at today's hearing, March 29. I wasn't able to blog about that hearing but
will reference it some in this post.

At a hearing on February 4, both parties argued a

 DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
 and
 THE STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF.

According to the Defense Motion To Vacate, There was a closed hearing on September 14, 2010  where the parties argued the State's First Motion in Limine to Admit Course Of Conduct Evidence and the Defense Response. After the Court reviewed the written and oral arguments of both parties, the court made a ruling as to what evidence would be allowed and ordered the state to prepare an order reflecting the court's ruling. On December 15, 2010 the state presented the order to the defense for review and the next day the state submitted the order to the court. The defense argued they had not been given sufficient time to review the order and the court allowed 2 weeks for resolve the issue with the state. It seems when the defense responded to the office of Bill Elward on December 28th so they could resolve any disputes to the language in the order, he was out of the office and he didn't return until January 2. On January 3 the court issued the ruling without further input from the parties; therefore, the defense sought to have the order vacated and reissued.

I can't tell you much about the order because it was under seal along with the original briefings. It was disclosed in the Defense Motion To Vacate that during the closed hearing the state conceded that even though they previously had stated in open court that they would seek to admit every prior bad act in Sheley's history, they had decided they would not seek to use every prior bad act, but just those relevant to this case....that is unless the defense opens that door at trial.

On February 4 Judge James Stewart said he held the order for 2 weeks and no one objected or let him know there was a problem so he issued the order on January 3. The state contends they tracked the court's ruling from the transcript of the September 14 hearing word for word.  Judge Stewart ordered both sides to file a redacted motion in limine with an offer of proof and a defense response within 2 weeks to be placed in the public record. (redaction's to eliminate any course of conduct evidence not allowed to be used). If I understand it correctly in the defense motion to vacate they contend, on September 14, the judge didn't make a ruling on the evidence but would tailor the courts ruling to was what specified in the the hearing by the state.

 Last week I picked up the redacted copies of the motions and pleadings, however I didn't see a new order in the file. It's possible I missed it, that is a heavy file. I linked all of the motions and pleadings mentioned in this post that aren't sealed on my docstock account so you can read them. As it turns out the course of conduct evidence wasn't even discussed in the March 29 hearing but I have been told it will be dealt with in the future.


PEOPLE'S OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ITS FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT COURSE OF CONDUCT EVIDENCE 
and the  
DEFENSE RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE'S FIRST MOTION OF LIMINE AND OFFER OF PROOF.

I was expecting an interesting hearing....and man ~ o ~ man interesting is an understatement.

Here is my in the courtroom report from the March 29 hearing:

When I came into the courtroom I wasn't surprised to see there were several from Ronald Randall's family here, they always arrive early and sit in  front row behind the prosecution. In the second row behind them is Shirley Pringle, the Knox County Victims Rights Advocate and a woman I have seen in court with Shirley before although I have never met her. The front row behind the defense table was reserved for the accredited press and there were already three members of the press seated.

In the second row behind the press was lead defense attorney Jeremy Karlin's administrative assistant and another young woman who looked familiar but I couldn't place.(I later learn she is Marissa Pendergrass from the CBS channel 4 (WHBF) in the Quad Cities. I embedded Marissa's video of Sheley leaving the courthouse and interviews with the State's Attorney, John Pepmeyer and Lead Defense Counsel, Jeremy Karlin at the end of my "in the courtroom" report...be sure to check it out.)

 I went behind Shirley and the other woman to my regular seat against a pole at the farthest end of the second row. After I took my seat, Shirley introduced me to the woman with her, her name is Stacy Dutton. Stacy is a very pleasant woman. I learned that Stacy is Shirley's replacement as Knox County Victim's Rights Advocate. Shirley tells me she retired last Fall. How the heck did I miss that? I did miss some hearings in November and December but the Shirley has been at every hearing I have attended so I didn't realize she was gone. LOL! Congratulations to Shirley and to Stacy!

The attorneys for both sides are standing at their tables. On the far right going left for the state is Michael Atterberry Assistant Attorney General, then Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer, and closest to the defense is Bill Elward Assistant Attorney General. At the defense table right to left is court appointed Lead Attorney Jeremy Karlin and next to him is Co-counsel Anthony Vaupel, there is an empty chair next to Vaupel for the defendant.The court reporter and clerk are in place. It looks like everyone is ready to go to work. All we need now is the defendant and the judge. The clock is gone in the courtroom so I won't be able to track time. I see the Bailiff get confirmation they were ready for Sheley and shortly after he is escorted into the courtroom by several IL Department of Corrections officers and several Knox County Sheriff's deputies and bailiffs.

Nicholas Sheley is wearing a white button down short sleeve shirt and black pants. His hair seems to have grown out even since the latest mugshot at Pontiac shown above and is slicked back reminiscent of a 60's greaser. I wonder why his clothing has changed ? He used to wear a tan scrubs when coming from Pontiac. Has his status changed at the prison or have they just had a uniform change? If anyone knows I would like to hear. Last I knew he was in protective custody....has he been moved to general population? The waist and ankle shackles are louder today as he walks in and they look a little heavier...another hmmm. As soon as Sheley gets seated he says fairly loud, "What the fuck you looking at?" Vaupel touches his arm as if to say calm down. Sheley's comment seems to be directed at Bill Elward. For some reason Mr. Elward seems to be on Sheley's 'list'. He wrote a long scathing letter to the Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart on Christmas Day 2009 about Bill Elward that was made a part of the public record. I have the letter posted here. Sheley motions for Jeremy Karlin to come over and then Sheley, Karlin and Vaupel go back to the holding area outside of the courtroom with the security detail.

Judge Stewart enters the courtroom and calls court to order then notices that the defense table is empty so we wait, the attorneys and those of us in the gallery go ahead and sit down.. It didn't take long before Sheley, his security detail and attorneys come back in. Sheley doesn't look happy. I can't see either attorney's face.
Stewart acknowledges both parties for the record and says," This case management hearing has been scheduled per Supreme Court rules." He mentions that the new law passed by the Governor takes away the death penalty, effective July 1, and notes that will effect this case.

John Pepmeyer stands to address the court and says that counsel for both parties have met prior to the hearing and agreed to September 19, 2011 for a trial date. That lightens the atmosphere in the courtroom a bit....it's about time. When Judge Stewart confirms that date with Jeremy Karlin, it's apparent Mr. Karlin is frustrated. (I don't think he even rose to address the court, which is unusual for him) Karlin replies he has no authority to set a trial date because of the document Mr. Sheley has just handed him. 

John Pepmeyer once again addresses the court and says the state is filing a motion to "de-certify" the death penalty in this case, adding the death penalty is no longer an available remedy in this case. (So it's official this is no longer a death penalty case as of today.) Judge Stewart makes sure the defense has a copy from the state. Pepmeyer also said he wants to make a record the people have tendered discovery labeled 14, contains enumerated fingerprint evidence. (Anthony Vaupel brought up this fingerprint evidence at the February hearing. I also remember Vaupel saying something about a deposition but I can't remember if that had to do with the fingerprints. My notes do say the state response was if the Governor signed the legislation the defense would not be entitled to the deposition. Moot point now I guess.)


Jeremy Karlin approached the bench and presented the court with a motion handwritten by Sheley stating his intention to represent himself.  This motion seems to have caught defense counsel by surprise as much as everyone else. Karlin gave the thick stack of papers to the judge and said they have not even read the motion yet and Sheley had advised the court this was the only copy. Karlin continued speaking as he returned to the defense table.....Mr. Sheley has instructed by his Pro Se Motion to bar any court appointed defense or any further mental health evaluation.

Bill Elward stood and said, " If he wants to play lawyer let him, and he can follow the rules. I apologize, this is just one more tactic from this defendant. If he wants to represent himself he must follow procedure. In order to file a motion he must provide copies to all parties, the court should not accept the motion until then."

Sheley is whispering to his attorneys. Judge Stewart says he will give 30 days for the defense to read the motion and decide how they will proceed. Stewart gets a date from the clerk and says April 25 at 9:30 a.m. adding there already has been an expert who has filed a report.

Elward addresses the court again, "For the record two Doctors evaluated and filed reports. (He says something about funding that I missed.) At what point do we get a copy? We are abundantly aware this is a delay occasioned by the defendant."

Sheley asks to address the court. Judge Stewart tells him he can't at this point. One of his attorney speaks for Sheley, " There are no copies because the exhibits included with the motion are under seal. There is no expectation of privacy in the DOC library anyone could see them. Not trying to play a game."

(My notes say he still has the obligation. It is what it is - remains un-filed. Sorry this is so cryptic, my notes don't say who said this, whether it is the judge or the state, likely it was Mr. Elward because my notes do show he spoke next.) 

Elward addresses the court again, " Ask Mr. Sheley if he is aware of the consequences? (of filing the motion)  We will be able to read and review."

Sheley then acknowledges that he understands.

( I have a few cryptic notes again  with no mention of who spoke....about a Motion to Extend, a Motion to Compel, additional discovery or affirmative defenses, trial testimony from his brother's trial. I believe these are issues that would have been addressed today until Sheley dropped his latest bombshell. I drew an arrow to the April 25 date, so evidently these issues will be addressed then.)

  
Judge Stewart says," We do still have to address this change in the law as to Mr. Vaupel. This should end Mr. Vaupel's services. " Stewart then ended the hearing.

  
Jeremy Karlin stands and asks the court to go back on record. Once we are back on record Karlin says, 
" Those documents were filed under seal to preserve the jury pool."
Elward is on his feet my notes just say NO.
Judge Stewart says he will not protect Mr. Sheley from his decisions, most were filed under seal because this was a capital case .(Emphasis mine)
John Pepmeyer asks the court to make copies of Sheley's motion....(which makes the motion public record).
I honestly didn't hear the judge end the hearing again...my thoughts were more along the lines of I want a copy of that motion. And $73.00 later I have it! I will address Sheley's motion and the exhibits he included in another post...this is long enough. A few thoughts from skimming the motion is that Sheley says over and over again how well he has conducted himself in court....well...except for that one time when he wasn't allowed to represent himself earlier in the case. I guess starting out this hearing with "What the fuck you looking at " just might count as a second example where he couldn't control himself. Included in the exhibits with Sheley's motion are his psych evaluations....it is noted he has impulse control problems....well yeah, ya think?! Stay tuned and be sure to watch Channel 4's video under this paragraph.



****************************************************************



UPDATE 4/17- Here is are  links to  Nicholas Sheley's handwritten Pro Se Motion. I am having trouble loading it on Docstock as a whole document, so I have split it into 3 parts. Be advised that on part 1 page 22 shows up first because I missed it when scanning. I can get page 22 in it's proper spot as a whole document  but not when separated as Docstock is requiring. grrrr...I WILL figure this out!

Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 1
Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 2
Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 3 Sphere: Related Content

Delays Push Stacey Barker's Murder Trial Into 2011

Emma Barker

In this entry I want to give an update on the pre-trial hearings of a murder trial that has been in the making since April 23, 2009 when Stacey Barker was arrested and charged for the death of her daughter, Emma Leigh Barker. After the update on the hearings and a little review, I want to take another look at the charges filed against Barker and what the California penal Code says about the elements of those charges that apply to this case.

Stacey Barker

For those who may not be familiar with the case, Emma Barker was 18 months old forever when her mother, Stacey Barker, led police to where she had disposed of Emma's lifeless body the day before, along side the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA, . When Emma was first reported missing at about 11 pm on March 18, 2010, Stacey Barker claimed she had been attacked and knocked unconscious as she was loading Emma into the car after playtime at a Lancaster, CA Park. Barker claimed when she came to, Emma was gone, evidently taken by her attacker(s). Later Barker admitted she had made up the story of the attack and kidnapping, she said Emma had died accidentally and she feared being blamed so she dumped her daughter’s body, removed some clothing and injured herself to support her kidnapping claim.

On April 23, 2009, when Barker was arrested, nearly a month after Emma's death, the charges filed against the young mother included one count of Second-degree murder, one count of Assault on a Child Causing Death and one count of Child Abuse. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. Authorities have accused Barker of smothering her daughter. Stacey Barker pled not guilty to all counts on August 12, 2009. She has been held at the Century Regional Detention Facility on a one million dollar bond since her arrest.

Rather than give the "in the courtroom report" of the hearings, I'll just hit on some of the highlights; however,I still want to thank our friends from the AV for taking the time to attend the hearings and share with us what they see and hear. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by many who are trying to follow this case through the justice system.

For many, this murder case seems to be dragggging on.....(A July 26 trial date had been set but because the court was informed at a June 28th hearing that both sides and a witness(s) had a conflict with that schedule the judge agreed to another delay.) At the end of the June 28th hearing, as Judge Hayden Zackey set a new date for the trial to start, during the week of September 26, he was very clear that there would be no more delays.....

Judge Zackey addressed the lawyers for both sides," You both want it to stay in this court right?" They both said, "yes".  Zackey then said, "Alright then, there will be NO more delays unless I am in a trial, then you both agree to wait until I am finished to start the trial...the only delays will be from ME, agree?"  Both Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Kelly Cromer and Public Defender(PD) Roberto F. Dager said," Yes".

 

Well.....there have been more delays......no trial yet and we are almost half way through November, at this point we don't even have another tentative trial date. There have been several hearings since I wrote about the August 11 hearing in this case, yet there really isn't much to say beyond delay, delay, delay. ~sigh~

No doubt the judge's admonition when he set the trial for September was sincere, but Mr. Erin Sutton aka "Vampire" had just surfaced in an exchange of discovery on June 9 and the investigation was ongoing.....Sutton is an inmate who reportedly has had communication with Stacey Barker while they have been incarcerated. It wasn't until August 11 that Sutton appeared before the court "in camera" to answer questions. The  information from that hearing remains under seal for now. Undoubtedly more time has been needed to investigate Sutton's claims.

The hearing on August 26 was scheduled to wrap up discovery and hear some previously filed defense motions. Judge Zacky told the defense," All the other motions you want to file at that time will be heard", and then asked," You will be bringing in expert witnesses right?" - During the August 26 hearing we learned the defense needed more time for consulting an expert witness....which meant no September trial......just another hearing scheduled for September 15......

This is speculation, but because of the timing, it seems the proffer of Sutton's testimony in chambers on August 11 may have changed or shifted the strategy of the defense compelling the judge to grant another delay.....do they need a new expert to support a motion(s) to keep Sutton's testimony out, or rebut it in some way? It's possible the expert witness is for something unrelated to Sutton, there are other issues. Whatever the reason, it must be compelling for Judge Zackey to allow another continuance. I guess we'll have to wait for trial to find out.

The hearing on September 15- There was another Public Defender in court for the defense, because PD Dager had a family emergency. I don't know if the defense expert witness was there or not, but the judge said the hearing is rescheduled for October 8 and all witnesses are to come back on that date, adding with no explanation, the hearing will be held in camera (on the record with both parties but in judges chambers and under seal ). Sheriff's Homicide Detective Sandra Nava was at this hearing, accompanied by two men in suits, who appear to be LE.

Detective Nava testified during the preliminary hearing that when she questioned Stacey Barker, she changed her story several times blaming Emma's death on a variety of accidents in the back seat of her car on the freeway before "admitting" she had held her hand over Emma's mouth knowing that Emma had a baggy in her mouth. It seems likely this "admission" will be a focus of contention for both sides during trial. Will there be a video shown of LE questioning Barker, particularly if she was making admissions? At the Preliminary hearing Judge Carlos Chung didn't allow the tape to be played, citing length, but let Detective Nava testify to it before he ruled Stacey Barker would stand trial. Judge Chung didn't make a ruling about the admissibility of the video at trial and as far as we know Judge Zackey hasn't made any rulings. Was this an issue before the court during some of the recent meetings in camera as well? Sounds feasible.

October 8- "In Camera hearing" There was no explanation from the court for having the hearing in camera.

October 13- This was a short but contentious hearing.....DDA Cromer asked Judge Zackey if they could go in camera to discuss some problems she found with paperwork. After returning to the courtroom, Judge Z. announced that he found the state's request to be reasonable and that things need to redacted from records, such as witness information.
As the judge was speaking, Mr. Dager appeared to be furiously reading some papers, Ms.Cromer asked the judge, "Make him stop reading!". (Hmmm do you suppose he was trying to get a good look before the redaction was done?) The judge told Dager to go get his papers.  On Dager's way out of the courtroom he was overheard saying some very non-professional things about the DDA.....I won't go into it, but will say both sides have engaged in name calling.
 When Dager returned,  Judge Zackey said he has  the reports from both parties and they will be redacted per discovery rule 1054. Dager added he also wanted some redaction per 1054 in the first or second subpoena, adding he wants to interview everyone who has had contact with Barker since May (09 or 10 ?) Something was said about a government agent and Kelly Cromer said, "He's not a government agent!" (We know this refers to Erin Sutton, Dager announced in open court on June 28 that Sutton had identified himself as such to Barker.)
Discovery rule 1054 specifically requires that discovery be conducted informally between and among the parties before judicial enforcement is requested.....
Zackey says again he will redact and asks how long it would take them to read it? They agree to one week and made plans to return to court on the 20th. Zackey told the defense it wasn't necessary for the defendant to attend that hearing (exchange of paperwork). Court was recessed.

 The next court hearing is scheduled for December 3, 2010. Craig Currier reported in the Antelope Valley News(AVN) that the prosecution said the trial should begin within 45 days of that date. DDA Kelly Cromer told the AVN, "We're pretty much ready to go" adding, " The trial should begin in January." When asked if this was the last continuance, Cromer replied, "I'm hoping so."  I think a lot of people would agree with that hope. Cromer also told the AVN, when asked, she couldn't comment about the delays or the closed hearings.

I noticed on the LASD website that as of August 20th, Stacey Barker's visitor status has changed from a Y to a N. Does anyone think it's a coincidence her visitor status changed 9 days after her attorney questioned Erin Sutton / Vampire in the judges chamber? It came out  through discovery, that the state has some CD's consisting of taped visits with civilians that went to see Barker in jail and some letters to and from another inmate at the jail, Vampire. Have things been said during visits with others that could hurt the case? Why else shut off visits? Once again we'll have to wait for the trial, until then it appears inmate Barker won't be getting her twice weekly visits.

Because so much of the recent court business has been conducted in camera and there seems to be a number of motions and records that are sealed, there isn't a lot of court business to report. During this lull in the case it seems a good time to take a look at the California Penal Code and revisit the charges filed in this case.

 The California murder law

187.(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.

Malice is "express" when there is clear evidence that
someone intended to kill another person.
Malice is "implied" when the person acted with a
reckless disregard for human life. And while there
are two degrees of murder…that is,
first-degree murder and second-degree murder… 
both require that the defendant
acted with malice.

189.  All murder which is perpetrated by means 
of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of 
mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition 
designed primarily to penetrate metal 
or armor, poison, lying in wait, 
torture,or by any other kind of willful,
 deliberate, and premeditated killing, o
r which is committed in the perpetration of, 
or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, 
carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem,
 kidnapping, train wrecking, or any murder 
which is perpetrated by means of discharging
 a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally 
at another person outside of the vehicle 
with the intent to inflict death, 
is murder of the first degree.
All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.
Second-degree Murder
In cases where child endangerment leads to a
child's death and thus murder charges,
prosecutors generally charge it as a
second-degree murder. This is because
criminal negligence and lack of care
usually invoke implied malice rather
than an actual intent to kill.
Prosecutors can charge second-degree murder
charge in connection with child 
endangerment charges in one of two ways:


1)through the California felony-murder rule, 
or
(2) by demonstrating implied malice.

These are two separate "theories" upon which
prosecutors can base their second-degree
murder charges. This means that a jury can
convict a defendant of second-degree murder so long
as it agrees with either of these theories.
And, under certain circumstances, a jury may actually
agree with both theories.
Every person guilty of murder in the second degree
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for a term of 15 years to life.
There are longer terms possible for second-degree murder, 
but they don't apply in the Barker case.

 Assault on a Child Causing Death

273ab.  Any person who, having the care or custody
of a child who is under eight years of age,
assaults the child by means of force that
to a reasonable person would be likely
to produce great bodily injury,
resulting in the child's death, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for 25 years to life.
Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the applicability
of subdivision (a) of Section 187
or Section 189. 

Child Abuse







273a.(a) Any person who, under circumstances or 
conditions likely to produce great 
bodily harm or death, willfully causes
or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts 
thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental 
suffering, or having the care or custody of any child,
willfully causes or permits the person or health
of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or 
permits that child to be placed in a situation 
where his or her person or health is endangered. 
 
A child abuse charge in CA is considered a "wobbler"
(can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony
 depending on the facts in the case) if prosecuted
as a misdemeanor shall be punished by 
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 
one year and a $6000 fine, if prosecuted
as a felony and there is a conviction the
penalty is  in the state prison for
two, four, or six years.
  
Sorry for the lapse in updates, my personal life called.
I love blogging, but this is a hobby so occasionally
I have to take a break. I am also not a lawyer, so I
interpret as best I can. I included the link to the
California Penal Code so anyone so inclined can look
for themselves. I found the penal code section
1054 - 1054.10 very interesting.  
 

Sphere: Related Content

Nicholas Sheley Defense Asks For Special Prosecutor

WGIL Radio in Galesburg, IL reports that the defense for Nicholas Sheley filed a motion on Monday, July 12 to have a special prosecutor appointed in his capital murder trial. I haven't seen the motion yet, so I'll supply the article from WGIL.com Their article will appear in black italics in this post and my analysis and opinions of the case will appear in regular type.

The local attorneys for accused spree killer Nicholas Sheley say a recent order in their favor makes it necessary for a special prosecutor to be appointed in the case.

Documents were filed Monday in Knox County Circuit Court by defense attorney Jeremy Karlin asking for the special prosecutor.

Karlin cites an order signed last month by Judge James Stewart that allows the defense to seek certain testing or services on an "ex parte" basis -- meaning, without prosecutors being present -- and also allows the Department of Corrections to transport Sheley for that testing without telling prosecutors.

On April 1, 2010, Judge James Stewart issued an order directing the Illinois Department of Corrections to transport defendant Nicholas T. Sheley for certain testing. The DOC filed an emergency motion  for leave to file a petition for an original writ of mandamus.The motion was denied and the order was entered by the court.

The IL Department of Corrections (IL DOC) then filed an emergency motion with the IL Supreme Court for a supervisory order. The motion was allowed. The Supreme Court wrote in it's order, " In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Circuit Court of Knox County is directed to vacate its order of April 1, 2010, directing the Illinois Department of Corrections to transport defendant Nicholas T. Sheley for certain testing. The circuit court is directed to conduct a hearing at which the Illinois Department of Corrections may be heard on the subjects of safety and expense, and may suggest alternative orders."

That hearing was held on June 18 and the court, again, ordered the DOC to transport the defendant for the required testing. Stewart told the defense whenever they need an ex parte hearing they should notify the prosecution of the hearing so they are aware, but the order allows Sheley to be tested and transported without the knowledge of the prosecution.

I wrote an entry on the June 18 hearing when
Judge James Stewart upheld this order titled 
"The Nicholas Sheley Case, 
It's A Long And Winding Road To Justice".

But Karlin claims while the order means his side doesn't have to disclose parts of their case prematurely, the filing says "A party to these orders has failed to comply with the terms of these orders."

Karlin doesn't specify in the filing who's at fault -- just that a special prosecutor is needed to help enforce ex parte matters in the future.

Because of the position the IL DOC has taken regarding this transport, Katfish...ponders feels comfortable speculating that the DOC in some way notified the state of a transport. They may have notified another agency within the executive branch of a transport feeling they would still be in compliance but the state was notified ??? I just don't see the State's Attorney or Illinois Attorney General's office failing to comply with the judge's order, besides, how would they know unless it came from the DOC?

But he's now also asking the judge to dismiss the entire 17 count indictment against Sheley, accusing him of bludgeoning to death 65-year old Ronald Randall among other things over two-years ago now -- part of a suspected two-state killing spree, and to strike a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

We can consider these latest motions as 
just another curve in that road to justice.

This isn't the first time Sheley's defense has made a motion to dismiss the 17 count indictment or to have the option to seek the death penalty removed. Those motions were previously denied in 2009. It's not clear without having seen this latest motion to dismiss and strike if they are being presented as sanctions for failure to comply with the court's order or just a continuing attempt to provide Nicholas Sheley with a vigorous defense. I tend to think it's the latter.

The Illinois Attorney General's office has aided the Knox County State's Attorney in trying the case, but Karlin says appointing a special prosecutor means Sheley's right to a fair trial will be maintained.
 

Again, this is just my opinion based on what little I know and have speculated about these recent developments.....If the DOC feels they must notify someone about these transports for safety reasons, maybe it is appropriate to appoint a special prosecutor or special master to oversee these exparte matters.

Sheley is currently serving a prison sentence for starting a fight with employees of the Knox County Jail last year. It's not known when this new motion will be heard. 

Katfish...ponders has learned there are hearings scheduled for July 29 and July 30, both at 1:45 p.m. to hear these motions.

In the meantime, several media outlets including WGIL have until Monday to respond to yet another subpoena in the case asking for documentation of their coverage of the case.

The defense filed a motion for a change of venue earlier in the case and have conducted phone polls in Knox County to support their motion. That motion was argued by both sides in November 2009 and Judge Stewart denied the motion calling it premature; however, he did not preclude the defense from renewing the motion pre-trial. The defense must be keeping up-to-date on the coverage in preparation to renew the motion. 

When denying the defense motion for change of venue in November 2009, Judge Stewart said, "Knox County has an interest in this case being tried in the county in which the alleged crime is said to have been committed." 

Any readers who are fellow trial watchers know that in some states the remedy the courts have used to avoid the expense and inconvenience of moving an entire trial, yet protect  right to a fair trial of the accused, is to bring a jury in from another county within the district. Perhaps in this day and age of 24/7 media coverage more states should consider this option. Off the top of my head I know of recent cases in Tennessee and Florida that have successfully done this......I haven't researched it but I know there are other states that do the same.

Sphere: Related Content

Waiting, Waiting, And Waiting Some More....Judge Rules Nicholas Sheley Trial Won't Begin Until 2011

Nicholas Sheley mugshot

The hearing I attended at the Knox County Courthouse on April 29, was originally intended to be a telephonic scheduling conference between Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart, the Prosecution, the Defense and defendant Nicholas Sheley who is housed in the Pontiac Correctional facility. Judge Stewart had scheduled the teleconference earlier this year in an effort to save Illinois some travel expense. Some of the attorneys for the state, one of the defense attorneys and Nicholas Sheley are located through out the state between Chicago and Springfield.

 Unfortunately,  the prison phone system couldn't forward the call into the area of the facility where Sheley is held, so Sheley was transported two hours each way for this half hour hearing.Why Sheley couldn't be brought to an area of the prison where the call could reach ?? I don't know. Kudos anyway to Judge Strickland for trying to keep an eye on the expense. The purpose of the teleconference  was to schedule some hearing dates and deadlines in preparation for the upcoming capital murder trial of Nicholas Sheley, 30, for the murder of Ronald Randall, 65, of Galesburg, IL . Sheley is also charged for five deaths in Whiteside County, IL and two deaths in Festus, MO. related to an alleged killing spree during the last week of June, 2008.

 I made my way up the stairs to the second floor courtroom about 1:15 pm. The hearing was scheduled to start at 1:30 pm so I had a few minutes to spare. I stopped for a minute to talk to a reporter from Whiteside County, Tara Becker, before taking my usual seat behind the family of Ronald Randall. They always sit in the front row behind the prosecution. This spot gives me a good view of the entire courtroom and a pole to lean on.

 A side note that may be of interest: At the last hearing Tara Becker told me she was reporting on the sale of  the Thompson State Prison to the federal government. I asked how that was going and she said the prison is officially closing as a state owned facility and the few prisoners who were housed there have been moved. In December 2009 President Obama directed the federal government to buy the near-empty state prison in rural Thomson, Ill., to house maximum security federal inmates and lease a portion of the prison to the Department of Defense to house detainees from the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The suspected terrorists from Gitmo will not be allowed visitors and the facility will be at least as secure as a super-max facility. The decision is part of a plan for shutting down the controversial Guantanamo detention center. OK, back to the  Sheley hearing.....

In the next few minutes two more members of the accredited press arrive and three of the attorneys from the Attorney General's office for the prosecution and two of the lawyers for the defense. Bill Elward, Micheal  Atterberry and Steve Plazibat from the AGO take their seats in front of where I'm sitting. Lead defense counsel, Jeremy Karlin comes in with new co-counsel Anthony Vaupel.  They take a seat at the defense table, Karlin opens his laptop and they look ready for business. Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer and John Hanlon from the State Appellate Defenders Office won't be in court today.

Right at 1:30 Nicholas Sheley is escorted into the courtroom by four (pretty big) corrections officers from the Pontiac State Prison. He is wearing his tan color prison garb, is fully shackled at his waist and feet. I notice instead of the rubber sandals worn at the county jail, Sheley has on some canvas sneakers. One of the CO's keeps hold of a ring on Sheley's waist chains until he is seated. There are a few Knox County Sheriff deputies and bailiffs in the courtroom as well. As soon as they have Sheley situated, Judge James Stewart takes his seat at the bench and the hearing is under way.

Judge Stewart explains that the scheduled teleconference didn't work out so we are here to do the same business. He first said they couldn't get the  prison on the call, and then said, "well, not to where Mr. Sheley was". Stewart also said that he has four issues that he wants to cover today :

1) Defense co-counsel Anthony Vaupel to update the court on his progress of familiarizing himself with the  case.
2) If the state has complied per Supreme Court rules 412 ( Disclosure to Accused )
3) If the defense has complied per Supreme Court rules 413 ( Disclosure to Prosecution )
4) There is a scheduling motion to be heard.

Judge Stewart asks what the state has on their agenda for today? Bill Elward stands to speak for the state. Elward says they want to set a trial date. Previously the trial was expected to start in October or November 2010 before lead counsel Public Defender James Harrell left the defense. The state is asking for a realistic date that they can work backwards from to set deadlines. Stewart agrees there have been issues with lawyers and other collateral issues that make it necessary to reset the schedule.

Anthony Vaupel rose to address the court. He informs the court that he has been able to read through all of the discovery (over 10,000 pieces of evidence), the court filings, and has reviewed most evidence on disk.
Judge Stewart asks where the other attorneys on the defense are in reviewing what has been submitted in the case? Jeremy Karlin stands and informs the court he has read the entire case multiple times. He adds that he can't speak for Mr. Hanlon, but when they have discussed the case Hanlon is able to speak intelligently about the case. ( I checked my notes and at a case management hearing six months ago, on December 4, 2009, Mr. Hanlon answered that question by saying," all but the last box".)

Judge Stewart says well," How about October or November, does the state have all of it's evidence and it's investigation done?"(Stewart had originally targeted sometime between May and October 2010 for the trial.) Jeremy Karlin says he doesn't see anyway  they can be ready by then. The question of the Motions in Limine for "course of conduct evidence" remains unanswered.

In 2009 the defense filed a Motion in Limine To Exclude Evidence of Other Alleged Crimes or Other Alleged "Bad Acts" at Trial, that hasn't been ruled on. In January 2010 the prosecution filed it's response to the defense Motion in Limine, their first Motion in Limine to admit Course of Conduct Evidence and simultaneously filed a Motion to Seal their Motion in Limine and any defense response because it contains evidence that may or may not be presented as evidence at trial and could taint the jury pool. At several previous hearings Karlin has referred to this as the $64,000 question because he can't comply with Supreme Court rule 413 as to expert witnesses and an affirmative defense until he knows what and how the state intends to use the evidence at trial. The state has contended they can't make that decision until they have some idea of what type of defense will be used. In court documents filed in March, Stewart ruled they would keep the motion sealed until there is a hearing to determine what evidence will be admitted, then the prosecutors will redact inadmissible portions.

Judge Stewart asks Karlin how long after that question is decided would the defense be ready for trial? Karlin replies February or March of 2011. Michael Atterberry stands and tells the court the state will be prepared to try the case then. Stewart says he is not ruling out January, and tentatively sets January to March 2011 for the trial unless circumstances arise that would interfere with that time period. The judge says they need to set deadlines for depositions and a close date for all motions to be filed.

Judge Stewart then asks if  the state has fully complied with 412? Michael Atterberry said, " We believe we have substantially, we're trying to provide what the defense motion just asked for, we have contacted the lab." (This is the first I've heard of this motion, I'll have to see if I can get a copy.) Stewart asks, " Does the defense feel they have complied with 413? Jeremy Karlin replies,"To the extent we know what our defense is."

Atterberry tells the court,  the state can re-plead their Motion in Limine and  asks for 3-4 months to prepare. Stewart says July or August for the state to re-plead and 30 days for the defense to respond, it shouldn't take as long for the defense to respond as it does the state to prepare to re-plead.. Karlin says any information about how the state intends to narrow.....the state conceding is good; however, that doesn't eliminate the defense need for the court to hear live testimony. Atterberry says 3 months needed. Stewart asks if it's necessary for the state to re-plead? Michael Atterberry says the state will do it as an offer of proof by July 1, June 15 at the earliest.

Stewart says if Mr. Karlin decides he wants to have testimony heard the court is available, and adds the deadline for the state to re-plead as an offer of proof is June 30 and then we need to have a case management hearing in July. Karlin says the defense would like an opportunity to respond.The judge says how much time needed to respond? Karlin tells the court 60 days to draft is reasonable, 60 days to respond. Then Karlin must have reconsidered because he says," I agree it's harder to re-plead, how about 45 days?". Judge Stewart responds," 30 days should be enough time, July 30 to respond, and a case management conference August 6 at 1:30.

Judge Stewart asks if the defense can disclose their defense based on the information they have? Karlin says they have done that, but not an affirmative defense, adding the defense can do that within 21 days of the hearing to decide the Motion in Limine. Stewart says 21 days from now. Karlin stands his ground, he tells the judge he doesn't mean to be obstinate but there are some investigations that aren't completed. Stewart tells Karlin he wants them to disclose some affirmative defense by June 30. Karlin answers they (the state) are entitled to know when I know. Stewart says it has been 2 years, it can be amended. ( It seems as though the judge is trying to be as fair as possible here, the state has conceded to re-plead their motion, so the defense can offer up some type of defense.)

Bill Elward stands and asks the court for some confirmation as to the dates that have been set. He lists
offer of proof 6/30, defense response 7/30 and case management hearing 8/6.
Karlin isn't happy with this schedule, he says,"We have addressed this issue, the schedule has us telling you an affirmative defense on the same day." Judge Stewart again says, after 2 years you should... Karlin interjects  but we will have additional information to obtain.

Anthony Vaupel says something about a motion for fingerprint evidence.(This must be the motion mentioned earlier by Atterberry.)  We just got the motion yesterday,Atterberry replies, we have conceded, we'll see if the information supplied is ok. Vaupel asks the court if this can be addressed at the case management hearing on 8/6. Stewart must have agreed because the next thing I heard was an order will be submitted.

Court is recessed. 

The DOC guard grabs the hoop on the back of Sheley's shackle. Sheley takes a scan of the gallery and he is led from the courtroom with his entourage of security to head back to Pontiac Correctional Facility. I spoke with someone who saw them arrive today who said Sheley and  the four guards made the 2 hour trip in 2 vehicles. Sphere: Related Content

Sheley's Trail of Terror

Final Update:
November 10
I thought I had gathered as much as I could about this killing spree, but I came across an article on STLtoday.com that was posted the day after charges were filed against Nicholas T. Sheley for the deaths of Tom and Jill Estes in Festus, MO. (suburb of St. Louis). The article is titled "Spree killer's timeline here". I will incorporate as much of it as possible into this timeline. I embedded the link in the title above if you want to see it all. I also have a few things to add to step #9 on this timeline, and lastly, I will add a little commentary about the information gathered while compiling this timeline at the end. I try to present my entries in a manner that leaves it up to the reader to form their own opinions but since this is my blog....my opinions do get sprinkled in.

November 9
I have completed steps 12 through 19. That should finish this entry up!

Original entry: 10/30/08

I plan to attend the trial in Galesburg, IL for the murder of Ronald Randall,65, of Galesburg and blog about it here, I have spent a lot of time reading about the case of accused spree killer Nicholas Sheley. Sheley is accused of killing eight people in two-states in late June. Most of the information out there is from the beginning of July when Sheley was apprehended.

I remember seeing a report in a weekly paper in Galesburg called "The Zepher", one of the things that jumped out at me about this particular article, was a pdf included called "Sheley's Trail of Terror." I included a sample of the pdf here (map didn't come through too well on the blogger), I suggest you check out the article Nicholas Sheley's Bloody Trail by Mike Kroll, it's well written and informative. The download link for the pdf is located at the top of the story too. You can see the routes taken and what allegedly happened at each spot. What I will do is take each step of the spree from the pdf and enter as much info as I can find about each step. Because there is so much information I will post a couple steps at a time and update each time I add more info. Hopefully that will make it easier for reading...not soo longg.

Please, keep in mind that the information provided is culminated from various news reports and is by no means evidence in the case. I'm anxious to hear what evidence is presented at trial, it sounds like there wasn't much effort to clean up the crime scenes so there should be a lot of evidence. If you know of anything I have missed, please let me know.



1. Push-in strong arm robbery of 90 year old woman in Sterling, IL (June 14)

Authorities allege that Nicholas Sheley, a construction worker in the Sterling area, pushed his way into the elderly woman's home at about 8pm on June 14, 2008. He allegedly forced the woman to write him checks, stole cash and a credit card, as well as cigarettes before leaving her alive.

Sheley was immediately a suspect (victim identified him?) and after a search failed to locate him, a $750,000 warrant was issued on June 23.

Authorities said Sheley spent part of his time after June 14 in Chicago buying drugs; however, according to this AP story, it was about this time that Sheley and his wife,Holly, moved into Holly's mother's trailer in Mount Morris, IL.

Here is an excerpt from that story:

Marcia Frey laid down the law when her daughter and son-in-law, Holly and Nicholas Sheley, moved into her trailer after losing their apartment last month: No alcohol. No drugs.

And for a week, the newlyweds were a model family.

Nicholas took the couple’s young children to the park and swimming every day. He mowed the lawn. He washed dishes without being asked.
“For that one week, I thought that no one could have asked for a better son-in-law,” said Frey.


That began to end when the couple, who were saving for their own house, took their green Cadillac to a car title loan company. Sheley promptly used some of the $1,000 loan to buy alcohol, Frey said.
He turned mean, like he often did when he was drinking or on drugs. He and Holly quarreled, then Sheley stormed out of the house, hopped in the car and took off.

That was June 23.

On July 1, Federal prosecutors charged Sheley with leaving the state to avoid prosecution for the June 14 home invasion.

On August 1, a Whiteside County grand jury indicted Sheley on charges of home invasion, robbery and residential burglary in connection with a June 14 incident during which Sheley entered the Sterling home of 90-year-old Janice Wilson and stole money, checks and her MasterCard, according to the indictment.


2. Robbery and murder of Russell Reed, 93, Sterling (June 23)

At 8a.m. on June 26, family members of Russell Reed became concerned when they noticed that Reed had not checked his mail or picked up his newspaper for 2 days, and that his car was missing.

They called Whiteside County Sheriff's officials, who came to the home and found blood in the kitchen, garage and outside the house.

Sheley's car, an older Cadillac, was found near Reed's home. Deputies sent out an alert asking area law officers to keep an eye out for Reed's car. By 3pm that afternoon police locate Reed's missing car in a residential driveway in Sterling and find Reed's bludgeoned body in the trunk.

Whiteside County Coroner, Joe McDonald said Reed died from blunt force trauma to the head, neck and chest.

On August 1, a Whiteside County grand jury charged Nicholas T. Sheley, 29, with 10 counts of first-degree murder and one count each of home invasion, armed robbery, robbery and residential burglary in connection with the June 23 beating death of Russell Reed, 93, of rural Sterling. Prosecutors say Sheley entered Reed’s home and beat him to death using some kind of blunt weapon, then stole Reed’s wallet and checkbook, according to the indictment.

3. Reed’s body stuffed into his car trunk and the car is driven and parked in the driveway of Sheley’s brother’s girl friend in Sterling .(June 23-24)

Two of Sheley's family members, a cousin Eric Smith and brother Joshua Sheley and Josh's girlfriend were charged in connection to Reed's killing.

At a court hearing July 1 in Whiteside County, testimony indicated that Sheley's brother, Josh Sheley 31, allegedly contacted his girlfriend, Jenna B. Henson,20, on June 24 and asked if he could park Reed's 2003 Buick Century in her driveway. He also allegedly told his brother to park the car further back from the street.

Investigators say Henson and the Sheleys drove to Chicago on the June 25 allegedly to dispose of evidence from Reed's slaying. Joshua allegedly told his brother, "he was going to get him out of trouble".

Reed's car with his bludgeoned body in the trunk was found in Henson's driveway on June 26. Henson's house was searched but Nicholas wasn't there. Henson is accused of lying to police officers, allegedly telling them that she didn't know anything about the car in her driveway and that she had not seen Nicholas Sheley in 5 years. Joshua was picked up that night after a traffic stop.

Eric A. Smith, 28, whom investigators say was in contact with Sheley more than once since Reed's body was found was charged with obstructing justice for allegedly driving Sheley around "to get rid of some things," according to Sheriff Roger Schipper. Smith turned himself in the night of the June 27. Several days later investigators found that Smith, a convicted felon, allegedly had a Rohm .22-caliber revolver and cartridges, allegedly stolen by Nicholas Sheley.

Both Eric Smith and Joshua Sheley were on parole at the time of their arrest.

On July 16 a grand jury in Whiteside County handed down an indictment for the three alleged accomplices in the murder of Russell Reed. Eric Smith, 28, of Rock Falls, Joshua J. Sheley, 31, of Rock Falls and Jenna Henson, 20, of Sterling, were charged in connection with helping accused murderer Nicholas T. Sheley, 28, of Sterling, conceal Reed's death.

Eric Smith was charged with one count of being an armed habitual criminal, which carries six to 30 years in prison and two counts of unlawful possession of weapons by a felon which carries three to 14 years in prison. The obstructing justice charge was dropped. Smith remains in Whiteside County jail on a $100,000 bond.

Joshua Sheley was indicted on one count of concealment of a homicidal death, which carries two to five years in prison, and one count of obstructing justice, which carries one to six years in prison. He is in the Whiteside County jail on a $750,000 bond.

Jenna B. Henson, was indicted on two counts of obstructing justice, and faces up to three years in prison. She is free on bond. A pre-trial conference has been set for November 25.

Pre-trial hearings for Smith and J. Sheley were set for October 1; however, I haven't been able to find anything on what happened or if the hearings were held.

4. Sheley steals Lincoln Continental and eludes Dixon police in chase, abandons stolen car in Dixon and steals a red Jeep Cherokee (June 26)

Sheley is accused of ransacking a home in Rock Falls, stealing 2 loaded handguns, a .22 Ruger and a .32 revolver, some cash and miscellaneous items, as well as a 1999 Lincoln Continental. An off duty Rock Falls police officer spotted Sheley in the Lincoln about an hour before it was reported stolen by the owner.

At about 9:45 p.m., Dixon police saw the Lincoln. They chased it to a field, but saw when they reached the car that Sheley had fled. Officers found money and other items taken from the Rock Falls home, but not the guns.

Dixon, Sterling and Amboy Police, Lee and Whiteside Sheriffs officials and Illinois State Police searched all night using dogs and a helicopter, but Sheley wasn't found.

About 7 a.m. on Friday, June 27, Lee County Sheriffs Department received a call about a red Jeep Cherokee that was stolen about 1.5 miles from where the dogs last tracked Sheley. There was 2 guns and some hatchets in the Jeep when it was taken. A pair of muddy jeans were found alongside the road.

5. Sheley drove Jeep to Chicago to sell guns and stolen merchandise and purchase drugs (June 27)

William Monroe, an Assistant Special Agent in charge of the FBI's Chicago field office, said he believed Sheley traveled to buy drugs and sell stolen items in Chicago, where authorities recovered the two stolen handguns from the Rock Falls home.

6. Sheley drove Jeep to Davenport and stops at Rest Stop to telephone his wife
(June 28)

After his trip to Chicago, Sheley drove the Jeep to Iowa. According to an FBI agent in an affidavit, Sheley stopped to call his wife from a rest area pay phone between Davenport and Bettendorf Iowa.

Police say Sheley had previously ditched his own cell phone shortly after the Reed homicide so he couldn't be tracked through it.

Saturday, June 28 was the last day the four Rock Falls victims and the Galesburg victim was seen alive.

7. Sheley drove Jeep to Rock Island where he burglarized Illinois Petroleum and steals their truck (June 28)

Sheley then drove the Jeep to Rock Island where he apparently broke into the Illinois Petroleum facility, where he stole some clothing and the truck he later drove to Galesburg.

Lee County Sheriff John Varga said, after his arrest, Sheley directed police to where the 1999 red Jeep Cherokee was located, which was found in the Quad Cities area.

8. Sheley drove Illinois Petroleum truck to Galesburg exiting I-74 on to Main Street (June 28)

Police believe that Sheley arrived in Galesburg just before 8pm, Saturday June 28 driving the stolen Illinois Petroleum truck.

It's reported that evidence shows Sheley exiting westbound off I-74 at the Main Street exit. Officials have reason to believe that Sheley cruised at least one other parking lot as he searched for a replacement vehicle before he arrived at the car wash. Randall was already busy at his truck when Sheley arrived well before dark and accosted the 65 year old man in plain sight.

9. Sheley drove Illinois Petroleum truck to Southard’s Car Wash on East Main where he kills Ronald Randall and steals his 2007 Chevy pickup (June 28)

Sheley is alleged to have accosted Ronald Randall at the Southard's Car Wash on East Main Street at a little after 8pm Saturday, June 28, as Randall was vacuuming the interior of his dark blue 2007 Chevy Silverado pickup truck. Apparently Randall was leaning into the passenger-side door when Sheley is presumed to have attacked him from behind with a still unidentified blunt object beating Randall about the head and face. Randall was then carried or dragged to the tailgate of his truck and thrown into the truck bed beneath a tarp.

Sheley allegedly left the stolen Illinois Petroleum truck at the car wash. The truck was reported on Sunday, June 29, before the owners even knew it was missing, however Randall had not been reported missing yet so there was no connection made.

When Randall's family reported him missing Monday, June 30, they also told Galesburg Police about the On-Star system built into his missing truck and suggested that it could be used to locate him. At that time they did not suspect foul play. On-Star officials were contacted and subsequently were able to direct St. Louis police to the truck there. By the time the truck was located so too had Randall's body.

Sheley is currently being held in Knox County on a $10 million bond and will be tried in Galesburg first in connection to the alleged killing spree.

On July 28 a Knox County Grand Jury handed up a 17-count bill of indictment for the death of Ronald Randall. The indictment includes 10 counts of first-degree murder — three that state victim Ronald Randall was more than 60 years old and allege his death was the result of exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty. If Sheley, 28, of Sterling is convicted of first-degree murder and aggravating factors are found, he could be sentenced to death. Also included in the indictment are two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated vehicular hijacking and one count armed robbery — all Class X felonies punishable by six to 30 years in prison; one count of robbery, a Class 1 felony; and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, a Class 2 felony.

On September 4, Knox County State’s Attorney John Pepmeyer filed the state’s intent to seek the death penalty in the case. Since it is now a capital murder case, Sheley has the right to two attorneys. Jeremy Karlin was appointed to assist Knox County Public Defender Jim Harrell in Sheley’s defense.

At a hearing Sept. 19, Sheley told the court he wanted to fire his attorneys and represent himself. He accused the pair of “sophisticated fast-lawyer talk” and were not adhering to his wishes for a speedy trial and his wishes were being “blown off as unimportant.”

Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart said Sheley must undergo a fitness hearing to determine whether he is fit to stand trial, competent to waive his right to counsel and competent to represent himself before he is permitted to fire his attorneys and represent himself.

On Oct. 2, Dr. Terry Killian was appointed to conduct a fitness hearing on Sheley. Killian has until Nov. 2 to submit a written report that includes a diagnosis and explanation of how it was reached; a description of Sheley’s mental or physical disability, if any; and an opinion as to whether and to what extent it impairs Sheley’s ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him.

According to Knox County Coroner Mark Thomas, no inquest will be held in the death of Ronald Randall. Randall's permanent death certificate was filed with the Knox County Clerk's office on Nov. 6 with the cause of death listed as blunt force injuries of head. The death was ruled a homicide.

10. Sheley drove the Chevy pickup with Randall’s body in the bed to the rear of the East Main Hy-Vee where he hides Randalls body behind dumpster (June 28)

Sheley is alleged to have driven eastbound on Main Street with Randall in the back of the truck. There is reason to believe that while Randall was mortally injured he was not yet dead when his body was dumped beside the dumpster in back of the East Main Street Hy-Vee. A trail of blood was found leading to and from the Hy-Vee dumpster area. Randall's body was not reported to police until Monday shortly after noon. It had been beside the dumpster approximately 40 hours before police were called, reportedly his body had been seen by Hy-Vee employees Saturday night who dismissed it as that of a drunk and did not investigate further until Monday.

11. Sheley drove the Chevy pickup to the adjacent Hy-Vee gas station where he buys cigarettes and then leaves Galesburg heading to Rock Falls

Witnesses as well as other evidence have Sheley driving Randall's pickup truck into the parking lot of the Hy-Vee gas station at about 8:20 p.m. Saturday where he parked beside a gas pump and entered the convenience store to purchase cigarettes. Sheley was wearing bloody clothes from the Illinois Petroleum truck and he had visible blood on his face and neck but this apparently did not seem sufficiently suspicious to cause the gas station employees to take special note of the man or vehicle or call police. Again a trail of blood was found tracing the path of the pickup and puddling where it was briefly parked.
When Sheley drove off minutes later he turned eastbound on Main Street presumably to get back on I-74, he had been in Galesburg less than an hour.

12. Sheley drove the Chevy pickup to a Rock Falls apartment where he murders two men, a women and 2-year old child (June 28)
Rock Falls is about an 85 mile drive from Galesburg. Rock Falls is across the Rock River from Sterling (Sheley's stomping grounds), both are in Whiteside County. Police estimate that Sheley was back in Rock Falls sometime after 10 pm on June 28.

At 4 p.m., June 30, the Rock Falls Police Department received a call requesting a welfare check at an apartment on Ave. A. Inside the apartment, police find the bodies of two men, a woman and a child. According to police, Sheley, who is associated with one of the victims, is "a person of interest" in the quadruple homicide.

They all died of multiple blunt force trauma to the head. It's likely they died late Saturday, June 28 or early Sunday, June 29.

Sheley allegedly attacked and beat to death the two men, (Kenneth Ulve Jr., 25 and Brock Branson, 29), a woman (Kilynna Blake, 20) and Blake's two year old son (Dayan Blake)in the apartment shared by the four. Branson met Blake in Cedar City, Utah and brought her and her son to live with him in Rock Falls. They were engaged to be married.

Speculation is that Sheley went back to Rock Falls to confront Branson, who had previously had a relationship with Sheley's wife, Holly. It's reported that Holly and Sheley had dated for 5 or 6 years and, despite a history of domestic violence between them, had married in May of this year.

A different report cites Illinois State Police Region Two Commander, Mark Maton as saying Sheley was aquainted with both male victims.

I also remember seeing a report on the local news ( I couldn't find it again) with the father of one of the male victims (can't remember which one) , he said he was certain his son didn't know Sheley before the incident. He said they had spoke of Sheley after the home invasion and the death of Russell Reed.

During the investigation, described by the authorities as aggressive and very thorough, that lasted nearly 3 months, very few details have been released about this case.

On September 18, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Whiteside County State’s Attorney Gary Spencer announced a Whiteside County grand jury has indicted Nicholas Sheley for four murders in Rock Falls on June 28, 2008.

The indictment consists of 15 counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Kilynna L. Blake, 20, Dayan K. Blake, 2, Brock A. Branson, 29, and Kenneth R. Ulve, 25. Three of the 15 counts allege that one of the victims was younger than 12 years and his death resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty. Spencer has 120 days after arraignment to file an order to seek the death penalty. Bond in Whiteside County has been set at $100,000,000.

It's reported that victim, Kenneth Ulve's, half-sister, Kendra Kruse, said she hopes the indictment of Sheley in connection with the slayings means that her family can finally find out exactly what happened. Kruse said it has been difficult for her family to go through the past several months with so little information about what happened to Ulve.

13. Sheley drove the Chevy pickup to Festus, MO searching for ex-penpal (June
28)

When Sheley left Rock Falls late Saturday night he was en route to Festus, Mo. Attempting to locate a woman with whom he had developed a penpal relationship with while he was in jail.

Teri Engel met Sheley through a group of Jefferson College students. She was taking courses there during her senior year at Festus High School. She said Sheley wasn’t a college student, but may have lived in the area. They lost touch, but friends told her he got in trouble for drugs.

Had Engel known Sheley was violent, she said, she wouldn’t have written to him. She thought he was in prison for drugs. However, drugs were only part of it. Sheley served time for aggravated robbery and other convictions. He was charged with beating his ex-wife unconscious, court records show.

But his letters told a different story. Some rambled for hundreds of pages, Engel recalled. Some reflected on astrology, his love for his children, his desire to change his life and his admiration for Engel’s former work with the developmentally disabled.

The two occassionally talked by phone after his release. Even though their relationship was never romantic, Teri Engel said that he got upset if she didn’t write him back or answer his calls.

The two last spoke 2 years ago when Sheley called Engel around 1 a.m. to wish her a Merry Christmas. Engel said she cussed him out for calling so late and hung up. That was the last she heard from him....but....he didn't forget her.

14. Sheley arrives in Festus, MO and unsuccessfully searches for woman (June 29)

Around noon on June 29, Engel’s nephew, Keifer Meyer, 15, answered a knock on his door. “He asked if Teri lived here, and I said, ‘No,’ and then he said, ‘Are you sure?’ and recited our address and phone number,” Keifer said.

Keifer said Sheley was driving a dark Silverado — the vehicle he is charged with stealing after allegedly murdering its owner in Galesburg, Ill.

He asked to see a picture of Engel. Her nephew said he didn’t have one, but told Sheley she worked at Lowe’s in Festus.

Sheley was next seen walking in Sunset Park in Festus at 12:15 p.m.. At 12:25 Sheley makes a phone call from Champions Merchantile on Collins Drive.

At about 12:44 Sheley was at Lowes probing Engel’s coworkers for information. She was at her goddaughter’s birthday party. A coworker called to say someone was looking for her. “He told her he was my penpal, and that’s when I knew it was Nick,” she said. Engel thought it was strange, but had no reason to believe anyone was in danger.

At 1 p.m. Sheley stops in Payless Shoe Store in Festus.

When, Engel heard about Tom and Jill Estes. She went to the Festus police station. Her nephew picked Sheley’s photo out of a lineup, and Engel told them what she could about Sheley. But there wasn’t much to say.

Police said Engel is not considered an accomplice and is lucky to be alive.

Tears well when Engel talks of Tom and Jill Estes. She wonders if Sheley turned on them when he couldn’t find her.

“Maybe if he got what he wanted from me, like revenge for me hanging up on him two years ago, he would have moved on, or if I didn’t write to him at all he wouldn’t have come here,” she said. “I’ll never know why he was looking for me.”

And she doesn’t plan on writing him a letter to find out.

15. Sheley attacks and murders 54 year-old Arkansas couple in Comfort Inn parking lot (June 29)

A couple from Sherwood Arkansas, Tom and Jill Estes (both 54) were visiting Festus that weekend as they attended a graduation ceremony Sunday afternoon and evening. The couple had checked in to the Comfort Inn on Friday and were last seen Sunday when they left the party at around 10:30p.m. to return to their motel room at the Festus Comfort Inn. Speculation is that as the couple took their dogs out when they returned to the motel and had the misfortune of crossing paths with Sheley in the parking lot late that evening.

11:30 p.m. — Truck driver at JB Hunt calls police to report a man parked in a Silverado pickup behind nearby Steak ‘n Shake and trying to enter the trucking building. 11:39 p.m. — Police run check on Illinois plate on the Chevy Silverado; it is not yet reported as stolen.

At a news conference in Festus, police said that a hotel guest found a couple's two small dogs around midnight roaming the parking lot and covered in blood. When police arrived, they found the couple's dogs unharmed, their 2007 Corvette untouched, two pairs of eyeglasses, a pair of earrings and a lot of blood.

Sheley is not believed to have had a prior relationship with the couple, police said.

On July 10, Jefferson County prosecutor Forrest Wegge charged 28-year-old Nicholas Sheley with two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action for the deaths of Tom and Jill Estes. Wegge said no decision has been made on whether to seek the death penalty. "It’s on the table and, quite frankly, it’s at the center of the table," Wegge said.

16. Sheley puts two bodies in back of pickup, drives to gas station 1 1/2 miles away to dump bodies (June 29)

Tom and Jill Estes were brutally beaten in that parking lot and their bodies thrown into the bed of Randall's pickup truck so they could be driven a 1 1/2 miles to be dumped behind a gas station late Sunday, June 29.

St. Louis area police officials say they found the bodies of the Estes at 11:14 am by following yet another of Sheley's blood trails from the Comfort Inn parking lot to the Phillip's 66 gas station.

At 12:19 am. on June 30 Randall's Silverado was caught on video arriving at Walmart. There is video of him buying clothes and finally leaving the Wal-Mart parking lot in the Silverado at 12:44am.

According to court records an off-duty Herculaneum police officer and several employees saw Sheley covered in blood at Wal-Mart. But no one called police.The officer, who joined the force 30 days ago, is embarrassed and upset because he didn't react, said Chief Chris Pigg.

17. Sheley drives pickup back to St. Louis where he abandons it and steals another vehicle (June 30)

Court records also say that Sheley was seen leaving the Silverado in St. Louis sometime between 8:30 to 9:30 am on Monday, June 30.

The stolen truck belonging to Randall, the victim in Galesburg, was recovered the morning of Monday, June 30 at 10:15 am in St. Louis, near an Anheuser-Busch distribution plant, authorities said

Large amounts of blood were later found on the truck's passenger seat and in the truck bed that officials have positively identified to include that of Randall and Sheley and the Estes'. Other physical evidence, including Sheley's fingerprints, and one of Jill Estes sandals, have been processed by forensic technicians in St. Louis where the truck was recovered.

I had seen a report early on that Sheley was spotted at a ballgame in St. Louis on the night of June 30, but frankly I disregarded it because there were a lot of "sightings" reported. The timeline from STLtoday.com shows that at 11 pm on June 30, Sheley borrowed a phone from a baseball fan at Busch Stadium and at 11:25 pm borrowed another cell phone outside the stadium.

18. Sheley is arrested outside of bar in Granite, City, Illinois. (July 1)

During the hunt for Sheley, the St. Louis County Police Department issued a bulletin describing him as an "extremely dangerous" methamphetamine addict. "He has stated to his wife that he has more killing to do," the bulletin said.

Tuesday morning, July 1, police in tactical gear searched a Collinsville, Ill., apartment building for Sheley, but were unable to locate him.

The intense manhunt for the "armed and dangerous" suspect, which included a $25,000 reward, concluded quietly Tuesday night when Nicholas Troy Sheley stepped outside a bar to smoke and was taken into custody by police in the southwest Illinois town of Granite City.

Sheley all but ensured his capture Tuesday when he called his attorney from a Subway restaurant in Granite City.

A person close to the investigation told The Associated Press that the call was the last of multiple phone calls Nicholas Sheley had with the attorney that day. The person -- who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing -- says the attorney was talking to Sheley at the FBI's direction.

At about 7 p. m., a disheveled Sheley happened into a nearly empty Granite City tavern called Bindy's that is frequented by off-duty police, said Bill Watson, 55, the bar owner.

Sheley looked nervous, disoriented and shaky, Watson said, "not our usual clientele."Two regular customers—Gary Range and Samantha Butler—and bartender Jennifer Lloyd immediately recognized him, said Watson, who also was in the bar. Just before Sheley arrived, they had been watching television coverage of the slayings that featured Sheley's mug shot, Watson said.

Afraid of alerting Sheley that they knew who he was, Range quietly stepped outside and flagged down nearby police officers, who were searching for the suspect, Watson said. Soon after Range returned, Sheley tried to light a cigarette and was sent outside to smoke."That's the first time the smoking law [has] done us any good," Watson said. "He went outside to smoke, and that's when the police caught him."

I haven't heard if these citizens were given the $25,000 reward. They should, IMO! The police were already looking for him in the area because of the calls to his lawyer, but those folks didn't know that. If they hadn't been tipped off, there's no gaurantee the police would have got him otherwise.

19. Sheley is transported from Madison County jail to Knox County Jail (July 3)

In a statement Tuesday, the FBI said all eight victims were killed by "blunt force trauma" to the head. A law-enforcement source said an ax was used in one or more of the homicides, and that method led authorities to begin linking the crimes.

Sheley didn't speak before he was driven by Granite City police to the Madison County Jail in Edwardsville, near Granite City. An afternoon court appearance was held Wednesday, July 2, by video conference, to determine bond issues but, Sheley did not enter a plea.
He was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Ronald Randall. Other charges include aggravated battery, vehicle hijacking and vehicle theft. Bond was set at $1 million.

Knox County officials transported Sheley to the Knox County jail sometime Thursday morning, picking him up from the Madison County jail. His first court appearance in Knox County was at 2 pm Thursday, July 3.

As stated above, Sheley is still being held in the Knox County jail but the bond has increased to $10 million. He is currently awaiting the results of a fitness hearing to determine if he is fit to stand trial, fire his lawyers and represent himself.

As I stated above, I am planning on attending Nicholas Sheley's murder trial in Galesburg, IL if/when it happens. I'm pretty sure he will be found competent to stand trial, although I'm not so sure about him being competent to represent himself. There is a different standard and rightly so.

I compiled all of the information in this timeline, and explored Sheley's criminal history in an entry that I posted at the end of October, in an effort to get a better "feel" for all of the aspects of this case and share what I find with you. I have no connection to any of the victims in this case or to Nicholas Sheley...I guess you can say I have no irons in this fire, except those of a citizen who wants to see justice done. It appears the deaths of Mr. Randall and Tom and Jill Estes were a random choice based on geography.....it could have been anyone of us!

As a true crime junkie, there are some aspects of this case that are different from many of the cases that I follow. This suspect left such a clear and consistent trail of physical evidence at each step of this crime spree, that even without a direct witness to any of the killings, there is, according to police, ample evidence connecting Sheley to each death. Has he gotten away with so much that he fancies himself as "teflon"? Or was he in a drug induced rage? Or does he just not care? All of the above? Someone close to this case told me, "It's not for us to figure out why someone would do something like this, it's for us to figure out what will be done about it!"

I'll leave it at that for now.

resources:

Illinois Attorney General STLtoday.com

Chicago Tribune Sherwood Wire

saukvalley.com

WQAD

Galesburg.com

The Zepher

Rockford WREX

msnbc

cbs

Peoria Journal Star

CNN

Sphere: Related Content